AIBU to want to talk about race? RE Kayne West

[FlyTipper]

This is an opinion piece about Kanyne West and who gets to talk about the fallout from his slavery comments.

www.theguardian.com/music/commentisfree/2018/may/03/selects-how-should-white-people-talk-about-kanye-west

I agree with much written here, but nonetheless I have some questions.

I agree that non-blacks really should avoid black spaces to discuss slavery. There's nothing new you can add to the conversation - yes, indeed.

But: If I want to criticise West by saying he sold out his own people, then the author instructs: NOBODY ASKED YOU....you need to check your privilege and be quiet for a while. Of course, nobody asked me. Nobody asks me what my opinion on brexit is, but I don't shut up about it IRL . On social media, nobody is explicitly invited to proffer their opinion, but everyone does. I can't help getting riled at the instruction to be quiet - even as I can see that white voices have been drowning out blacks since forever (and yes, I have looked inwardly to see if I have this reaction because a black person is asking me - I don't think it is, I feel the same x100 about #nodebate). I don't see how self-censorship helps anyone. What if it leads to a couldn't-care-less attitude, as people disengage from fighting racism?

She also advises to avoid talking about West's alleged MH problems because this is a distraction from the harm done by West's comments. Okay - I partly agree with this. However, it is still relevant to West's motives driving his outburst. To avoid MH completely - and avoid offending people with neurodiversities in our ableist society - amounts to restricting free speech.

I am saddened to think that the conversation about race should be going on in closed rooms. Where blacks discuss West in one place, non-blacks in another, and never the twain shall meet. Isn't this preserving divisions already in place? And yes, I understand intellectually (I have no direct experience being non-black myself) that the debates on race have been dominated by white voices. I agree wholeheartedly with having non-black spaces to discuss these issues, I just also think there should be an open forum where everyone can pitch in. AIBU?

Unfortunately, the narratives that a/ slavery did not just affect blacks/it happened a long time ago/there is no more slavery, b/ whites have it bad too and c/ libtards take down the person not the argument, are widespread in the alt-right community. Every single time these things come along and the same arguments come out of the bag.

When engaging with the alt-right online I try to argue the following:
a/ the historical slavery in the US goes someway to explaining why blacks are economically and educationally held back in today's society. (their narrative is that blacks are lazy and by itself explains the socio-economic differences)
b/ but if a poor white kid was black, it would be worse. I usually ask the debater if they would like to change the colour of their skin. They always say no i.e. choose to keep their relative privilege.
c/ the left and right are equally culpable of using this technique - when it suits. On a side note, I think it is sometimes or even often worthwhile considering who is giving the message and what their motives are. Google-memo-guy had an agenda - he didn't like women in tech. His memo may or may not have been accurate. The question is why spend so much effort trying to say women aren't as good as men in tech. The agenda is informed by a person's background, contacts etc. It can be a valid way of debating.

FlyTipper-Unfortunately, the narratives that
a/ slavery did not just affect blacks/it happened a long time ago/there is no more slavery,

Apart from 'there is no more slavery', those statements are true.

b/ whites have it bad too

Again that's true

c/ libtards take down the person not the argument, are widespread in the alt-right community.

'Libtard' and 'alt-right' are both meaningless buzzwords, they are personal insults. Accusations used to shut down disscussion.

The accusation 'racist' is over used. Even the Labour MP Ann Cryer was accused of being a racist when she tried to campaign on behalf of victims of racism. The debate was shut down and damage that shitting down caused was catastrophic. People died

*shutting

What I meant by my words (I didn't explain properly) was that points a and b may be true but these arguments have been systematically used to minimise the history of black slavery in the US and to prop up their belief that blacks are naturally lazy (among other things). I use to the term alt-right to illustrate the collection of voices that relentlessly pursue minimisation. I have interacted with this group online and know first hand how they argue this.

On the last point, you don't like my use of inflammatory terms. That's fine. I like to use shortcuts. They may offend you but many people use them and understand them for what they are. In fact, I don't think the alt-right dislike the term alt-right at all - they invented it to avoid using the word far-right. If you prefer, substitute left wing liberal for libtard, and religiously and socially conservative right wing for alt-right. I see you didn't disagree with point c however.

What I meant by my words (I didn't explain properly) was that points a and b may be true but these arguments have been systematically used to minimise the history of black slavery in the US and to prop up their belief that blacks are naturally lazy (among other things).

I agree that there are attempts, in the USA, to minimise black slavery. The obvious example is the 'Irish Slaves' myth. Although I haven't seen any comments that say 'blacks are lazy'

I use to the term alt-right to illustrate the collection of voices that relentlessly pursue minimisation.

But pointing out the Barbary/Ottoman slave trade existed or that Africans were involved in the slave trade or white people had it hard as well isn't 'alt-right'.

I have interacted with this group online and know first hand how they argue this.

Not everyone online arguing these things is 'alt right'. Many on the left are tired of identity politics and the dismissal of class perspective

But pointing out the Barbary/Ottoman slave trade existed or that Africans were involved in the slave trade or white people had it hard as well isn't 'alt-right'. No, but if you want to respond to black slavery education or topics of discussion by saying 'not all slaves were black' you are unwittingly (or wittingly) minimising African-American history. As the religiously and socially conservative right wing section of society also use the same technique, it's not surprising the two things become linked.

Before you debate slavery, consider very carefully who else is using your arguments and to what purpose. Are you unconsciously channelling their narratives? If you are genuinely tired of identity politics (and I can relate to that), then debate that, rather than minimise BA history. Don't repeat the damaging rhetoric of the religiously and socially conservative right wingers.

FlyTipper-No, but if you want to respond to black slavery education or topics of discussion by saying 'not all slaves were black' you are unwittingly (or wittingly) minimising African-American history.

How?

Before you debate slavery

But is anyone saying, even on the right, slavery is up for debate? It has been taught in schools for decades, using strong primary evidence. No one I have seen is denying slavery, it's barbaric cruelties or that it wasn't wrong.
KW, to me, was trying, in an inarticulate way, to say that dwelling too much on the past, ie slavery, is a 'choice' that some black Americans make. I genuinely believe that is what he meant.

I consider very carefully who else is using your arguments and to what purpose. Are you unconsciously channelling their narratives? If you are genuinely tired of identity politics (and I can relate to that), then debate that, rather than minimise BA history.

But identity politics is a big part of the debate. This was part of KW's point

Don't repeat the damaging rhetoric of the religiously and socially conservative right wingers

Historical fact can sometimes be damaging rhetoric or offensive yes, but that is no reason not to use it in debate, as long as people are civil and don't resort to insults. I find the 'Irish Slaves' rhetoric', apart from being untrue, damaging but the way to challenge is not to shut it down, but to come back with hard facts and historical sources. In fact that is what is starting to happen now.
I would argue that it is the left who are becoming conservative and puritanical, the shutting down of debate, the no platforming at universities...

What do you think of Candace Owens?

m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ugm6IQOYakQ

Having watched this interview I think he is mentally unwell or on drugs

I call them the illiberal left, Alpine, but you might find that insulting or meaningless buzzword

The problem with the argument NASWB is that it is so commonly used to minimise BA history. I implore you, browse comments on BB is you don't believe me: they say explicitly that socio-economic racial inequalities are environmental: blacks are lazy/naturally criminal/want to wipe the whites of the face of the earth/blame their poor situation on slavery/wanted to be slaves/weren't really slaves/were treated well as slaves. They think the history books in school need to be revised. Sigh. I could go on.

But I'm with you wrt freedom of speech, ignoring class and so on. Just don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The pendulum has swung too far no doubt, and the forces that be will bring it back to something more acceptable to the majority. Also, bear in mind that the alt-righters are as much into identity politics as their 'adversaries'. They're obsessed with keeping what they call white culture: Judeo-Christianity, white music, clothing and so on, separate. Separate from immigrants, Muslims and, yes, blacks. They explicitly reject multiculturalism and wish to live in separated communities. On second thoughts, don't go on BB, far too depressing.

FlyTipper-I call them the illiberal left, Alpine, but you might find that insulting or meaningless buzzword

I don't find it 'insulting', I'm just not sure what 'illiberal left' means. Is it a more authoritarian left? Do you mean Candace Owens and KW?

The problem with the argument NASWB...

I don't know what NASWB means. I have looked it up but still not sure. I am not even sure what the 'alt-right' is TBH. I've seen media commenters mention it but...

...comments on BB

Big Brother?

I genuinely do want to understand and I do agree with some of your points but I am not sure where to look for examples of what 'they', the alt-right? are saying

As long as you aren't drowning out or talking over black people

Are black people an infantile group that must be protected and given special status because they are too weak to make their own case? Obviously not so why do I need to worry about this?

It's things like this that, while well meaning, are one of the most damaging parts of identity politics. They set groups up as separate from others and needing 'special status' and protection. As the man in the video linked to earlier said, the argument is what's important, not who is making it.

This current trend for opinion over facts and logic (feels over reals) is one of the most worrying trends in modern society.

I highly recommend Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race if you want a female written UK perspective on race and identity.

The author suggests that Kayne has made this statement to increase record sales.
Am I cynical to suggest that the author wrote this provocative and diversive article to increase book sale?

I don't like to flag Breitbart but there you go, that's the BB reference.
NASWB = Not All Slaves Were Black, my personal modification of NAMALT, Not All Men Are Like That (I'd spelled in full in previous post)
Illiberal left = the left who are becoming conservative and puritanical, the shutting down of debate, the no platforming at universities...
'Libtard' and 'alt-right' are both meaningless buzzwords, they are personal insults You gave the impression you knew what these terms mean. Look them up if you don't.

Patriarchy - I guess when you mention feels and reals, you are in fact criticising the transgender part of the identity politics. You say They set groups up as separate from others and needing 'special status' and protection - do you really believe that? From your name, I would have thought you were from the feminist camp. Surely that's what women only spaces are? And AWS, and quotas for women in the workplace. I appreciate you may not support every one of these measures, but I'm guessing you think women are an oppressed class and as such should have some level of protection under the law and in society? As I said earlier, people may not agree with the full-on illiberal left agenda, but I would advise not throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Flytipper

Sorry, I understand the confusion. My username is ironic.

I don't believe in 'The Patriarchy' and I'm happy to explain my reasons. You'd be surprised (you really wouldn't be) how often that gets me labelled as a misogynist/oppressor or as my personal favourite insult of all time 'the Patriarchy Personified'. Hence the name.

I'm don't subscribe to the ideas of gender/race based oppression within western societies. 'White Privilege' and 'The Patriarchy' are my two biggest bugbears.

I don't like to flag Breitbart but there you go, that's the BB reference.

Well whatever BB is, it has at least provided the full KW quote in one of it's articles

Here is what KW said that caused much controversy

Quote
“When you hear about slavery for 400 years. For 400 years?! That sounds like a choice. Like, you were there for 400 years and it’s all of you all? Like, we’re mentally in prison,”

I do wonder if you're being deliberately obtuse Alpine.

Patriarchy - your username did throw me! With respect to your biggest bugbears, don't you think these are useful descriptors? I mean outside of twitter and the news commentariat. These are terms that have come from social scientists wishing to model the world we live in, to discuss it, and dissect out the problems. To keep on topic, take term 'institutional racism' that came out of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. It was a watershed moment. The phrase carried weight and meaning, and gave us a handle to understand what was going on in the police force. It longhand it means, The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people The report did not take any group of officers and accuse them of overt racism, it said this was everyone's problem because of the generally accepted, internalised norms to ethnic minorities in police culture.

I conceive of white privilege in this light. But where these 'loaded' terms are thrown around lightly (like in the Guardian article in the OP, check your privilege), or to set one group off against the other (white women's tears) I am extremely uncomfortable. It's used, as you say, to create division and reinforce boundaries between people. I could never subscribe to that. However, that said, there is a counterbalance (why these terms exist in the first place) which is about rights. Where processes in society exist and have been working away to maintain or exacerbate the divisions (like ethic representation in higher ed, or women in leadership roles), there is a good case to talk about how we right the problem. When we talk about that, then yes, terms such as patriarchy or white privilege become meaningful and helpful.